Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Manufacturing Consent: elections

The sponsor government tries to associate the election with the happy word "democracy" and the military regime it backs with support of the elections (and hence democracy). It emphasizes what a wonderful thing it is to be able to hold any election at all under conditions of internal conflict, and it makes it appear a moral triumph that the army has agreed to support the election (albeit reluctantly) and abide by its results.

The refusal of the rebel opposition to participate in the election is portrayed as a rejection of democracy and proof of its antidemocratic tendencies, although the very plan of the election involves the rebels' exclusion from the ballot. The sponsor government also seizes upon any rebel statements urging nonparticipation or threatening to disrupt the election. These are used to transform the election into a dramatic struggle between one side, the "born-again" democratic army and people struggling to vote for "peace," and, on the other, the rebels opposing democracy, peace, and the right to vote. Thus the dramatic denouement of the election is voter turnout, which measures the ability of the forces of democracy and peace (the army) to overcome rebel threats.
- from Herman, Edward S. and Chomsky, Noam. Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books. 1988.

Yes this was written in 1988. Thus we can see a pattern of how the US government and its manufactured regimes operate.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Fake New York subway terror threat

There was no threat to begin with. This whole thing was a public relations ruse to show that the White House is "keeping us safe" and "working with local officials". This is Katrina damage control. What a bunch of fuckheads.